Friday, December 26, 2008


I received my hardback copy of the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) in June 2008, having ordered it from in January. Was it worth the wait?

In a word, no. I had hoped for a modern translation of the Greek Old Testament in English with the books in their proper order and all the parts in place. In their “Introduction to the Orthodox Study Bible,” the editors note that “in Orthodoxy’s 200 year history in North America, no English translation of the LXX has ever been produced by the Church.” From what I have seen to date, that statement may still be true: this translation abounds with errors, at least in Genesis and Exodus, as the table near the bottom of this page will demonstrate. When I began to compare the OSB Old Testament with the Greek, I suspected I would end up quibbling about a few passages on the grounds that the patristic understanding had not been taken into account, but end up recommending the work. I didn’t consider the possibility that the editors would permit so many plain mistakes to be published.

Thursday, April 10, 2008


We received our case of 12 Orthodox Study Bibles this past week. By purchasing twelve, you can get them at the substantially reduced price of $30 apiece. Since some have criticized the price of one copy ($50, hardcover), if you have the opportunity to purchase this Bible in bulk, the price ceases to be such an issue. Further, I noticed that Amazon will begin selling the Bible in June (I think) for $31.47 (you can preorder now).

Several long-time Orthodox bloggers have been harshly critical of the OSB. I read their critiques, and while I understand some of their concern, I feel — as I have already stated — that a good part of their criticism simply goes overboard. There are, I’m sure, valid points made by the OSB’s detractors. However, when the criticism becomes so detailed that even a case of poor syntax on the cover or an abbreviation of a patristic source in an index which turns out to be an unused source becomes fodder for “blog-venting,” I just think time is being spent in less than helpful ways.

That said, two of the primary detractors I’ve read also happen to be two Orthodox brothers whom I deeply respect, and whose blogs I frequent. I’ve no doubt that both of them are more advanced in their Orthodoxy than am I — by leaps and bounds — and that they likely understand problems with texts and translations and the such better than I do. One of them is a priest from what I understand, and I certainly intend no disrespect toward him in my more positive take on this Bible; the other is a kind man who is quite an OT scholar, whose writings and reviews are, quite simply, way over my head. So, take my thoughts on this Bible as simply the initial impression of a layman with no academic credentials and who has been Orthodox for only a short time.

The cover of this Bible is fair. I like the icon of Christ on the dustcover, but the dustcover also seems a bit cluttered (the picture at left is not exactly accurate; the real cover is more cluttered). I think I’ll take mine off soon enough, especially since the actual binding is very appealing, being a nice burgundy with gold imprinting. “The Orthodox Study Bible” along with a Russian style cross appears on the front, with a similar spine. The actual cover is very simple and tastefully done.

The actual construction of the Bible seems okay to me. I always (on all Bibles) wish they came with heavier pages that were less translucent. Of course, that would result in a very heavy and thick Bible. The typeface is readable enough, not the best I’ve ever encountered but certainly not the worst, either. The footnotes at the bottom of each page (generally comprising the bottom 1/5 to almost 1/2 of the page, though rarely more than 1/3) are easy to navigate and decipher. Some bloggers have complained that when Patristic sources are referenced, there are no actual references to specific sources, just to the name of the Church Father. Yeah, that is a bit unfortunate, but given the intentions of this Bible, I’m not sure that this is absolutely necessary. Most Christians reading this Bible either won’t have the time or money or desire to look up all references. The Orthodox who do desire this generally can find that through other means (at least I’ve found this to be the case with myself). However, I would be glad to find that the editors considered giving some more reference specifics in future editions of this Bible (I can’t see that this would be too overly difficult to remedy).

{Added note, 4/9/08 — I just looked at an old copy of the NT/Psalms Orthodox Study Bible. It was a red letter version with center column references. I’m pretty ambivalent toward both of those features. BUT, the NT/Psalms version had much better typeface. I don’t know why they changed that. The new Bible is much thinner paper with more bleed through, and a less readable font, which makes for a somewhat uncomfortable reading experience, to me. I’m really a sucker for beauty in a book, and the quality of font and paper ranks high on my list of priorities… which is why I am so fond of the books published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, which you can get HERE at excellent prices and with superb customer service). Oh well… I wish the publisher had stayed with the old font and paper. Maybe in future editions.}

The introductions to each book are quite short, and I did not find them to be all that helpful. They are the bare minimum, and as long as someone is not depending on this one book for complete introductions, they are just fine.

On the footnotes again: At times, they are very helpful in pointing out things I had not considered before, and in helping me to see what various Fathers said about the texts. However, on the whole, they are quite brief in most cases. Many verses have no notes at all. I have mixed feelings about this. Part of me would rather have less footnotes and just better text spacing, and part of me would rather have more copious footnotes. I guess the editors had to make a balance between the two. Myself not being the one who put all the work into this Bible, I can’t really fault them for their selection. All of us have various opinions on how it should be done, but these folks are the ones who put the work into it.

I really do like the section of the footnotes that points out when various texts are read during the year, i.e., the seasons of the year or Sundays, etc., when the section is read. For those of us who are new to Orthodoxy, it helps us to connect what we are reading with the life of the Church. Very nice addition to the notes.

I certainly would not rely on just the footnotes to understand the biblical text. But, I feel certain the editors of this Bible would say the same thing. The OSB is not meant as a replacement to the Liturgy, or the Lectionary, or the Fathers, or the Councils, or the Prayers, etc. (as some commentators seem to think it was intended). It’s an aid, and while the footnotes are occasionally very helpful, and usually at least somewhat helpful, they certainly are not the highpoint of this Bible, to me.

I will say this: to any Protestants or converts to Orthodoxy, this Bible will not seem as complex and complete as some of the bigger Protestant “Study Bibles” (such as the NIV Study Bible by Zondervan). But, I also think some of those larger study Bibles in the Protestant world are way over done, with so much information that they almost do appear to be a complete “religion in a book” type of deal.

I like the full color icons. Some don’t. I do. I suppose that’s a matter of various tastes, so I hardly see the point in arguing over whether they chose the best icons in all cases.

I like the “Introducing the Orthodox Church” section at the beginning, and was especially glad to see Bp Kallistos Ware’s “How to Read the Bible” at the end. For those who berated this study bible, thinking that it would lead to reading the Bible “only personally” and “outside of the Liturgy”, I think it suffices to see that Bp Kallistos’ section reminds us that the Bible must be read “in the Church.”

I also appreciate having the Lectionary at the back. I’ve heard some say that it is perhaps not complete; I don’t know enough to know. But, the few days I’ve compared with the GOARCH calendar seem to be the same. I’m happy to have this addition, as I don’t have to run to a calendar or website to get the readings. I also thought the Glossary was decent, though I’ve only briefly looked at it. For whatever reason, I often look to see how someone defines “Tradition,” and I was thrilled to see that, in this Glossary, “Tradition” is not defined as “the rest of the faith not part of the Bible,” but was the “life of the Holy Spirit in the Church,” with the Scriptures themselves being at the core of that Tradition, that life. Very nice.

There is a very brief section of morning and evening prayers, including of course the Trisagion prayers, the Creed, a few morning and evening prayers and intercessory prayers. Most people who do pray frequently will have these memorized in short order, but they are helpful to have for people new to Orthodoxy who may have this as their only Orthodox book for a time.
The best aspect of this Bible, to me, is the scope of the text. It is the entire Orthodox Bible, including the OT which is either translated from the Septuagint or at least modified where the Septuagine calls for it (the Septuagint being the Bible of Christ and the early Church). I have the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint, from Oxford), and it is nice, but it is also quite unwieldy for a non-academic. I appreciate having the entire text of Scripture in on Bible, in a translation that is readable and, from what I understand, at least fairly accurate (though no doubt all translations have problems here and there).

Regarding a few criticisms I’ve heard. Much has been made by some over the “packaging” of this Bible. By that I’m referring to the blurbs on the dustcover and the very idea of a “study bible” itself. I’ll admit I am not too impressed with what is said on the dustcover. It seems a bit trendy at times, and at other times just a bit overstating. As one blogger noted, the Orthodox have had resources to study Scripture for a long time, and a few of the statements on the dustcover almost sound as if this Bible is the first source to do such.

However, I wonder who even wrote the blurbs for the dustcover. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was done or at least edited by people at Thomas Nelson. And, it’s not all that bad, really! To make it that bad, one has to assume the worst about most of the things written on it, and I would hope that Orthodox would refrain from that type of judgmentalism. “Love hopes all things, bears all things.”

Secondly, what about “study bibles” in general? I have mixed emotions. Part of me would have been almost happier with just the text, on better paper, with more ornate binding, and just a few of the resources like the lectionary and a glossary and index. But, it’s not my project, and I’m very thankful to those who prepared it. They are men, like all of us, and they can make mistakes; I bet they’d be quick to admit that. But, like Fr. Soroka said here earlier, I think we ought to commend them on trying to do something good for the Church, and where those worthy can critique in love, let that be done constructively.

In a way, all commentaries are “study bibles.” St. John Chrysostom, in effect, wrote a very lengthy study bible. Blessed Theodoret’s commentaries on the Gospels are, in effect, a “Gospels study bible.” Granted these commentaries are much more exhaustive and more truly patristic, but I don’t understand the wholesale rejection of “study bibles” just because “Protestants came up with them.” And, the making of a study bible does not inherently imply that the creators of it no longer recommend that we “study” the Bible through reading the Fathers and attending the services of the Church.

I do hope that converts to Orthodoxy will not use this Bible to replace better sources, such as St. John Chrysostom’s texts, sets like Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, and the various Fathers’ writings. I hope that none will think they no longer need their priest, or the bishop, or the Church and Her Tradition. I can only speak for myself here, but reading from this Bible has done anything but that. It has actually excited me to pull out some of those Fathers to read them in their entirety, and to make sure I am faithfully attending the Liturgy and all services I can, so that I can hear the treasure of the Scriptures proclaimed in the midst of the Eucharistic assembly, the Church of God.

I think the message from the editors, early in the Bible, is well put: “The prayer of the editors and contributors of The Orthodox Study Bible is that it presents an understandable Bible text and commentary to (1) English-speaking Orthodox Christians the world over and to (2) non-Orthodox readers interested in learning more about the faith of the historic Orthodox Church.” (side note: I really think this aim of the editors is the central aim of this Bible, not the flashy blurbs on the dustcover).

Over all, I am glad to have acquired this Bible. I’m doubtful that it will replace my Oxford RSV as my normal reading Bible, but I think I’ll use it considerably. And I have little doubt that many Orthodox will find their reading of the Scriptures renewed through this resource. If that happens, I can hardly understand why the OSB is a bad thing. Thank you to those who labored on this resource; I know one or two of them and have found them to be genuine Orthodox Christians who are desirous to follow Christ and serve His One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Orthodox Church.

Well, that’s it… the for what it’s worth review of a non-credentialed lay person.


Friday, April 4, 2008


It may well be objected that my attempt to judge the Orthodox Study Bible by its cover was a rather superficial exercise. I'm quite willing to grant this, and will attempt to remedy this in this and subsequent posts. I have, in fact, since opened the OSB and discovered, much to my surprise, that the dust jacket does not in fact do the OSB justice. It is, in fact, much worse than advertised.

The cover promises the reader that the OSB will allow him to "become more conversant about [sic] the ancient roots of Christianity" while expanding his "Bible knowledge with commentary from Christian teachers of the first millennium." While the Orthodox reader may wonder about this fetish for antiquity as the source of true doctrine, it's still not a bad set of promises.

The OSB contains, in its opening pages, a list of source abbreviations. One can see at once that things are off to a bad start. Although the cover makes repeated promise to limit sources to "Christian teachers of the first millennium," one finds St Gregory Palamas and St Seraphim of Sarov listed among the authors cited. While they, of course, are welcome, they lived well after the editors' self-imposed cut-off date: St Gregory reposed in the fourteenth century and St Seraphim in the nineteenth. Even odder is the fact that, although listed, St Seraphim is, in fact, nowhere cited in the entire volume. One then notices the inclusion of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Thordoret, both of whom were condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council. These are not the sort of "ancient roots" one should be looking for. The identity of certain of the listed authorities is also confusing. One can safely assume that Eusebius is that of Caesarea, but he could likewise be Eusebius of Nicodemia or Samosota. Or who is "Nicetas"? Probably St Niceta of Remesiana, but possibly also Nicetas Acominatos or Nicetas Stethatos.

In order to answer these questions one looks for the bibliography to find which works are being cited. But there is no bibliography! One simply has no way of following up any of the citations. What then, really, is the point? Where and how can one, for instance, look up an interesting quotation from St Maximus the Conessor?

On to the Patristic commentary itself. There is extremely little of it. The vast majority of study notes do not come from the Fathers at all; more often than not, they simply give a sort of play-by-play of the Biblical text, like notes in a junior reader edition of Hamlet. One can turn page after page after page without finding a single mention of the Fathers and, when one does chance upon one, it is normally a very brief paraphrase rather than a direct quotation. Moreover, whatever quoted passages from the Fathers that are to be found are rarely more than a single sentence long. Now, it is understandable that Patristic commentary on, say, the Book of Nehemiah may be scarce. But what is really shocking is to see the almost complete absence of Patristic commentary on the Gospels, apart from a very occasional reference to St John Chrysostom. This simply boggles the mind.

Given the questionable authority of a number of the "Fathers" cited as sources, the scarce number of study notes in which the Fathers are cited (let alone quoted) at all, the almost complete absence of Patristic commentary on the New Testament, and the complete and utter absence of a bibliography or any other other sort of key by which one could trace passages back to their sources, I simply can't see how the editors of the OSB could, in good conscience, claim that they are bringing "to one volume the words of Scripture and the understanding of those words from the earliest days of the Christian era," unless they feel that they can express that understanding better than the primary sources themselves.

In subsequent posts I hope to comment on the OSB's disastrous Trinitarian theology and its entirely Protestant approach to the study and authority of Holy Scripture.

If my comments may seem harsh it is because the OSB could have been better, and should have been better. As I've mentioned before, if the OSB had managed to package an Orthodox approach to Scripture within the limits of a Protestant-style study bible, I'd be much more gentle in my criticism. That the OSB should prove to be so deeply foreign not only to the ethos of Orthodox Christianity, but to its doctrine and teaching as well is simply unforgivable.



There may well be deficiencies in the articles in the OSB, but so far, no one has pointed out one that was heretical. It may not be perfect, but I think the way the OSB has produced an Orthodox Translation of the Septuagint imperfectly is better than the way everyone before them has not done it at all. There may be cases in which they have not brought out all the nuances of the Greek in the Septuagint in favor of leaving the NKJV text as it was… but in those cases in which the LXX and the Hebrew Masoretic text are in essential unity, I would argue that we should be more concerned with bringing out the nuances of the Hebrew. Only when there is a real textual divergence should we feel free to disregard the Hebrew and start worrying about the nuances of the Greek… because at the end of the day, the LXX is still a translation of the Hebrew, and when we are confident that the LXX and the Hebrew essentially agree, there is no good reason to not translate the Hebrew text.

- Fr. John Whiteford of St. Jonah Orthodox Church, Spring, TX, responding to Kevin Edgecomb's review at

Thursday, April 3, 2008


I recently bought the Orthodox Study Bible and I have to say that I am less than pleased with it. This Bible could have been done so much better, but was not.

First, the Septuagint text used is Alfred Rahlf's Septuaginta and NOT the Zoe Brotherhood or Apostloki Diakonia texts cross-referenced with the Septuagint readings found in the Liturgical texts to check for any divergence or variations.

Second, the text is NOT a translation, but a slight emendation just changing certain key portions from the Hebrew reading to the Greek reading, but that is not proper as you are left with a mess and miss-mash of a text that is not truly an translation of the Septuagint as used and preserved in the Orthodox Church.

For example please see the mis-translations of Genesis 3:15, Genesis 4:8 (The WHOLE phrase is missing!), Exodus Chapter 3 with the Divine name (The Existing One?) & Psalm 22 just to name a few. Also, the OSB omits 4th Maccabees. Why? Place it in an appendix. 4th Macabees has greatly influenced Orthodox (especially Greek) piety for centuries. Why omit such an important book?

If one looks at the NETS translation (which also has 4th Macc. thank God), which is truly excellent, you get to see the mistranslations and sloppy work that was truly done on the OSB. I was so looking forward to this translation, but now I can't wait to go back to my RSV with the Expanded Apocrypha that is a much better translation.

Third, what happend with the New Testament? It is not the official ecclesiastical text from Constantinople. This could not be fixed. In fact, we were told that the New Testament WAS going to be harmonized with the Patriarchal text, just like we were told that 4th Macc. was going to be translated and included, but this was never done. Why?

All in all this is NOT an Orthodox Study Bible and it was done too quickly by people who were truly going too fast. I believe this is why many in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese were raising concerns and even left the project because a good translation was NOT being done.

- Peter A. Papoutsis, translator of The Holy Orthodox Bible, posted at


My Orthodox brothers Felix Culpa and Esteban will both be commenting on the Orthodox Study Bible in coming days. I recommend you to check their blogs for their insightful critiques. I think this will be the last post of mine dealing more than in passing with the new Orthodox Study Bible. I’ve noted a few more problems with this Bible, two of which are “deal breakers” which, for me, means it will join its predecessor and various other study Bibles to collect dust. This is unfortunate, as some of the translated texts are done quite well. The problem is that not all of them are, and that the presentation in this volume inadequately reflects the nobility of the subject matter. Let us cut to the chase!

On Tobit. There are two texts of Tobit, the short text as found in the majority of manuscripts (Hanhart’s GI, found in Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and others, as well as represented in Jerome’s Vulgate translation), and the long text (Hanhart’s GII, found in Codex Sinaiticus with lacunae, and a few fragments otherwise, but well-represented in the Old Latin translation). The GII text is universally recognized to the be the older of the two, with GI representing a later reworking of the text. In such a case, the presentation of both versions or the longer alone (perhaps with an indication of which passages are lacking in the shorter version) would be preferable. While it is known that the text of Codex Alexandrinus is the Old Testament in favor on Mount Athos, and so the shorter version of Tobit will be preferred there, there is no canonical statement finding for either ancient text. The fuller text does tell the story better, however, and for that reason alone it might be preferred. But it appears that the Revised Standard Version was the boilerplate in the books called anaginĊskomena (”readable”) among the Orthodox and “apocrypha” generally, and the RSV used the shorter text. Again, the NETS actually provides translations of both texts in parallel, as it does for the case of all such divergent texts in the Septuagint tradition: in Iesous (Joshua), Judges, Esther (giving the Old Greek and the Alpha text, which is a bonus!), Tobit (the GII and GI texts), Sousanna, Daniel, Bel and the Dragon (all three have both Old Greek and Theodotion). The approach of NETS is preferable.

Regarding the notes in the OSB, I thought I’d take a look at something which would naturally have occurred to a good editor: to make certain that the points made in the articles about various texts were also included in the notes to those texts. Here too the OSB makes a failing grade. Take, for example, the article “Types of Mary in the Old Testament.” Firstly, why just “Mary” and not a properly Orthodox reference to the Champion of the Faithful like “The Virgin Mary Theotokos”? How about even “Mary, Mother of God”? Oh, that’s right, I forgot that this OSB is actually directed at Protestants, not Orthodox, so we couldn’t possibly call her what we actually call her in what is supposed to be our own Bible! Secondly, of the eighteen Scriptural references given in the article, ten are not represented in the notes to those texts. That is, at those points in the notes, where a reader is most likely to be looking for information on how the Orthodox Church reads the verse, there is no notice that these various ten verses are read to reflect the Theotokos. Even aside from this, and it really is unforgivable, Isaiah 7 and 9 are not included in the article! How can the primary prophecy of the Theotokos in Isaiah 7.14, recognized even in the Gospels, not be included in an article on the subject? That’s laughable! Likewise, there are many other references which were not included. The author of the article could simply have sat down with an annotated copy of the services for the Church’s Feasts, like The Festal Menaion put together by Bishop Kallistos, and made a list of all the Scripture readings and allusions therein and made sure the editor would ensure appropriate commentary in the notes for each. This would’ve taken mere minutes, not hours or days. In addition to this shortcoming in this particular article, there is another shortcoming, a more literal one: the text of no article fills the page dedicated to it. It appears that the font of the articles was changed along the line somewhere so that it is smaller and no longer fills the page. This is sloppy. The extra space could’ve been used to better the articles.

Randomly flipping through the OSB, I found that a number of notes are problematic in historical or factual matters. A note to Isaiah 22.1-5 indicates “Jerusalem fell to the Assyrians.” This is not the case. A note to 2 Kingdoms 15.7-12 (the text of 15.7 begins “Four years later…”) reads “After four years (the LXX has “forty”)….” So, this quite apparently answers our question as to whether this is a translation of the Septuagint or not. Clearly it is not! It is guided by other motivations, which allowed some of the translators to adjust their text toward the Hebrew. This is not in itself a bad idea, but it is not what the Old Testaement of the OSB (or rather the “St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint™” [sic and barf]) proclaims itself to be. The note to Judith 1.1 places the entire book in the wrong light: “This opening verse is anachronistic in that the father of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebopolassar, destroyed Nineveh in about 607 BC.” Aside from the error that Nineveh was not destroyed in “about 607″ but 612 BC, with no “about” about it, and the oddly spelled Nebopolassar rather than the standard Nabopolassar, this misses the entire point of the book in its parabolic masking of various historical characters with names drawn from the rest of the Old Testament, of which Judith is a part. Nineveh represents Seleucia, and Nebuchadnezzar the Seleucid king, and so on. Reading this as a straight historical account is as much a mistake as reading it as an entirely allegorical one. Bad form! A relatively good note appears at Daniel 5.2: “St. Jerome remarks that ‘vice always glories in defiling what is noble.’ He sees in Belshazzar’s blatant misuse of the holy vessels a type of the misuse and twisting of Scripture by heretics for the purpose of drawing others into false doctrine and worship.” Now that is on the right track, at least. Yet there is no way to find out where St Jerome elaborates on this, as there is no reference to his undoubtedly pithy statement on the matter. It would perhaps have been preferable to leave out the vast number of inane notes in preference for more substantial patristic quotations which included references to the works (at the very least!) in which they appear. But I tire of this.

There are some very good translations in the OSB Old Testament. Isaiah and Job are quite well done, as is Jeremiah. I haven’t delved too much into others, as this edition is not conducive to reading. Most of the Prophets suffer from the serious drawback that their texts are not presented (I kid you not) in poetic scansion. The lines are all run together as though everything in them were prose. And the density of this font in combination with the close line spacing and the thin paper (with its subsequent bleedthrough) makes for very uncomfortable reading indeed. For me, this is one of the “deal breakers” I mentioned above. For whatever reason the verses weren’t presented in poetic format, the verdict is the same: poorly done indeed!
Add to this the occasion that the very complicated issues of verse numbering in various books have received the least useful solution in this OSB: that of creating a versification unused by anyone else, and probably not even by all the annotators in the volume! This is the other “deal breaker” I mentioned. This is wholly unacceptable and unjustifiable. A better solution, again, is presented in the NETS: the versification of the standard editions is retained, and the versification of the Hebrew text is indicated in small raised parentheses.

Readers will need to follow the progress of the other Orthodox Septuagint translation projects in order to eventually obtain a decent Orthodox translation of the Church’s Old Testament. The OSB is not that. In the meantime, I would continue to recommend the NETS. While it may not be a perfect translation, and it is an academic translation geared toward usefulness as a tool in better understanding the underlying Greek texts, it is still of a higher consistent quality than is the OSB. If a reader wants to read a contemporary English translation of the Septuagint, then the NETS edition is the one to read.

- Kevin P. Edgecomb, posted at

Wednesday, April 2, 2008


I just wanted to know has anyone noticed the mistranslations in the first few chapters of Genesis in the Orthodox Study Bible? If i'm wrong, which I hope I am, please let me know. The mistranslations that I noticed are:

Genesis 3:15 & Genesis 4:8

I especially noticed that Genesis 4:8 is omitting a specific passage found in the Septuagint where Cain tells Able "Let's go out to the field." This phrase is missing from the Orthodox Study Bible, but is clearly present in the Septuagint. What's going on?

Peter A. Papoutsis [translator of the Holy Orthodox Bible]


I noticed this kind of thing also (and others on the internet have as well). The OSB is NOT a translation of the LXX as advertised. It is an LXX/MT hybrid. I don't know if they simply haphazardly worked on it, are outright lying, or both, but it is not what it advertises itself to be: an OT from the LXX.

I thought I was going to finally get a single volume Bible with an LXX OT to butresse the NT, but I'm going to have to wait longer. I'm a little angry over it and feel more than a little cheated by them.

- posted on the LXX · Septuagint and Old Greek Studies discussion group at